G3 battlecruisers

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:20 pm

I must have misunderstood, as I thought you said four ships were laid down. One thing I noticed in Campbell was the relatively late decision to forego inclined transverse bulkheads. Does anyone have specifics on that discussion?

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:10 am

Laurence Batchelor wrote:
One interesting fact about the G3's was all four were actually laid down and some materials for their construction were actually stockpiled by their slipways. They were quite close to being built, hence why at the Brass Foudry I was able to locate full GA sheets for them, whereas the N3's and other designs of the time I could not.
Cheers
LB

I didn't think they were actually laid down? As Werner says, the decision to suspend them was very soon after the original order.

Rob

Laurence Batchelor · Post by **Laurence Batchelor** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:56 am

Sorry Rob, Werner & Jorit I forgot to proof read what I typied, I omitted the words 'close to being' between actually and laid down in the above qoute.
That will teach me to write things quickly!

I've read advanced contracts were placed for forgings and castings and material was gathered at a slipway.
The sheets I've seen at the NMM are the ones that would have been given to Swan Hunter, Beardmore, Fairfield or John brown to begin ordering, sub-contracting and construction for these ships.

I believe the orders with the shipbuilding firms was not cancelled until Feb 1922, although construction was stopped in November 1921 to await the outcome of Washington.
Once the outcomes of that was known, only then was the material gathered dispersed with or recycled by the shipbuilding firms.

Although the official orders were placed only 1 month before they were put on hold (October-November 1921) I feel these shipbuilding firms would have known sooner than October that their estimates had been accepted and that is why I believe the state of construction for the G3's was more advanced than one would expect after only 1 month.
Normally it takes a while for the Treasury and the Admiralty to draw up the appropriate paperwork etc.
I've found from my studies of the WWI armaments industry (Which includes contracts placed with private industry by the Admiralty, War Office, Ministry of Munitions, Air Ministry etc) that often these things were communicated via telephone many months before official contracts were drawn up.
This was vital so the contracting firm could get labour, machinery and their sub-contract orders in at the earliest opportunity.

Advanced orders, as was usual with large calibre guns, were also placed with the armament firms, alhough I'm not sure how far they got with their orders.

Once again my apologies for the confusion I hope I've now made my position clear this time.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:28 am

Laurence Batchelor wrote: Once again my apologies for the confusion I hope I've now made my position clear this time.

I think we'll let you live.

You can park your G3s next to my Des Moines....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:06 pm

He would have to park a little bit of G3 next to each packet of razor blades sold in your neighborhood Walgreens, then.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:12 pm

Chuck wrote:He would have to park a little bit of G3 next to each packet of razor blades sold in your neighborhood Walgreens, then.

That strikes me to the quick. I shall now be in a blue funk all day.

Roger T · Post by **Roger T** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:24 pm

Laurence Batchelor wrote:It is new information to me that one of the 1916 Admiral class battlecruisers was to be named Anson.
Please can you point me to the source of your information, either published or archival I'm intrigued?

Hi Laurence - John Roberts in AOTS The Battlecruiser Hood [third impression, p.8] lists the Admirals as...

Hood, ordered from John Brown
Howe, ordered from Cammell Laird
Rodney, ordered from Fairfield
Anson, ordered from Armstrongs

...the first three all being ordered on the same day in April 1916, and Anson being ordered in July 1916.

Laurence Batchelor · Post by **Laurence Batchelor** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:38 pm

Thanks Roger, the term Admiral class always stuck in my mind, but I never knew the names that was allocated to the other three ships until now.

Mitrich · Post by **Mitrich** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:22 am

Note that those afore-mentioned plans of G3 form NMM are labeled as "1921-1922 capital ship" and not as "battlecruiser", which makes me think that there was no real intention to build N3 class. Furthermore, as I learnt from correspondence with people from NMM, there are no plans of N3 at the Brass Foundry because this class has never left a sketch stage, so I was recommended to search MOD archives for the sketches.
And there is no "as fitted" label on my set of plans of G3.

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:51 am

Is it possible the "capital ship" label simply reflects the treaty language of the time?

Mitrich · Post by **Mitrich** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:36 am

Or may reflect what G3 was meant to be - too fast for a battleship and too powerful for a battlecruiser. Germans also labelled their last designs of 1918 as Grosskampfshiffe - http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans ... 100dpi.jpg

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:09 am

The German Einheitsschiff was economically iffy, like many of the BB-BC hybrids in other navies. Note that the final capital ship authorized under the Kaiser was an "L" rather than a "GK."

ar · Post by ar » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:57 am

Mitrich wrote:Note that those afore-mentioned plans of G3 form NMM are labeled as "1921-1922 capital ship" and not as "battlecruiser", which makes me think that there was no real intention to build N3 class. Furthermore, as I learnt from correspondence with people from NMM, there are no plans of N3 at the Brass Foundry because this class has never left a sketch stage, so I was recommended to search MOD archives for the sketches.
And there is no "as fitted" label on my set of plans of G3.

The plans of the N3 and other Battleships of the time frame that I found , that were re-drawn ad placed in British Battleships by R&R are held not in the MOD but in the PRO.

Laurence Batchelor · Post by **Laurence Batchelor** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:37 am

Mitrich wrote:Note that those afore-mentioned plans of G3 form NMM are labeled as "1921-1922 capital ship" and not as "battlecruiser", which makes me think that there was no real intention to build N3 class. Furthermore, as I learnt from correspondence with people from NMM, there are no plans of N3 at the Brass Foundry because this class has never left a sketch stage, so I was recommended to search MOD archives for the sketches.

You could also look into how advanced the 18-inch mountings were to determine were the Admiralty was with the N3's.
Raven & Roberts research as well as Campbell's suggests to me the N3 design was very advanced.
D K Brown in a conversation with me considered both G3 & N3 were virtually there, apart from minor details.
I would also suggest that I do not consider the G3's as battlecruisers, merely fast battleships following Hood's 1918-20 lead.

I'm not sure which MoD archives would hold such material and that NMM advice sounds a red herring.
To my mind only the NMM or NA would hold such plans if they existed.
The only other things which might come to light are more sketches possibly in constructors notebooks, some of which are in the British Library.

Here's some of the things ar is talking about he saw many decades ago in the National Archives:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... mage1.y=14

Mitrich wrote:And there is no "as fitted" label on my set of plans of G3.

No they are General Arrangement drawings, although having a rig plan suggests again to me the design was mature.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:50 pm

I think in the context of 1920 it was still reasonable to classify a ship as either a battleship or a battlecreuiser according to her intended deployment, rather than superficial comparison of weight of armor. If G-3 were intended to operate as a screen breaker, but capable of withstanding the fire of enemy screen breakers, than however heavily armored, she was a battlecruiser. If G-3 were primarily intended to operate in close tactical corporation with the N-3 during the actual battleline engagement, then she was a battleship.

It is possible that an heavily armored screen breaker could rejoin tha battlefleet during the main battleline engagement in actuality, but it is probably unwise to assume any strike breaker that has heavily engaged with enemy battlecruisers will automatically still be available and fit to stand in the main fleet battle, however heavily armed. So even if it is true that an heavily armored screen breaker can stand in line of battle, one could still distinguish a battleship from a battlecruiser by whether the battlefleet itself is intended to be able to stand and fight successfully without the contribution of these ships, thus freeing these ships to fight to the finish in the screen breaking role should the need arise, or whether these ships, even if initially committed to screen breaking role, they were still expected to comport themselves in such a way as to preserve themselves for rejoining the main battleline.

Post by **JWintjes** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:41 pm

Chuck, what is a "strike breaker"?

Jorit

And no, I'm not picking at something for a change - I just seem to have failed to get your point.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:13 pm

JWintjes wrote:Chuck, what is a "strike breaker"?

He means a ship or ships which will charge through the enemy's cruiser van and reconnoiter the enemy's disposition. Such a ship might then approach train or perhaps the carrier to wreck the enemy's ability to spot fall of shot.

Ship Model Gallery · Post by **MartinJQuinn** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:17 pm

Werner wrote:
JWintjes wrote:Chuck, what is a "strike breaker"?
He means a ship or ships which will charge through the enemy's cruiser van and reconnoiter the enemy's disposition. Such a ship might then approach train or perhaps the carrier to wreck the enemy's ability to spot fall of shot.

How cute, you and Chuck finish each other's thoughts now!

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:23 pm

Not really. This one is uncharacteristically transparent, though.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:02 pm

I must work harder on improving my opacity.